| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Cognitive Science Forum » Prime issue challenge
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| James Harris |
 Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 12:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Well I claim that my prime formula is a great discovery, while others
keep posting that it's not important at all!
However, I know exactly how my formula works, so it seems to me that a
good check of others is to see if they do as well.
So I have a simple challenge. Posters assertions imply expertise, and
at a minimum that expertise should involve understanding *how* my
formula works.
So I'll give them a couple of weeks to try and explain it in this
thread, then if all goes according to plan I'll explain to you how it
works, and you can see who is the real expert.
And don't worry, it's all *very* simple or I wouldn't present this
challenge. The explanation for how it works is well within the
capacity for a 12 year old to understand, and not even a smart twelve
year old.
Here's the formula and the instructions for using it, I've dropped the
use of the word "integrate" as it opened the door to criticism:
Here is the partial difference equation and instructions for summing.
dS(x,y) = [p(x/y, y-1) - p(y-1, sqrt(y-1))][ p(y, sqrt(y)) - p(y-1,
sqrt(y-1))],
S(x,1) = 0.
And p(x, y) = floor(x) - S(x, y) - 1, and you get S as the sum of dS
from dS(x,2) to dS(x,y).
The count of primes for a positive integer is given by p(x,sqrt(x)).
If you're wondering what floor(x) is, it just means just use the
integer part.
Like if x = 234.34343433, floor(x) = 234, and no rounding. You just
drop.
I have my work on the web at
http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/
and I've posted a lot, and LOTS of people have posted on this subject,
so if you want you can find explanations already.
However, I have a suspicion that the people who've been boldest in
claiming that my work isn't important are ones who can't explain how
it works!!!
That goes to something that happens to a person when deep down they
know they're lying. To explain how my formula works, posters need to
tell the truth, or face the consequences later when *I* explain how it
works, if they just try to lie some more.
Then again, they may be so contemptuous of your intelligence that they
try to lie anyway.
So it's an experiment. Let's see what happens.
James Harris
"My math discoveries, found for profit"
http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bob Day |
| Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 12:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"James Harris" <jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3c65f87.0311280916.1dfc65ef@posting.google.com...
Quote: Well I claim that my prime formula is a great discovery, while others
keep posting that it's not important at all!
Did you give up on trying to crack RSA already?
-- Bob Day |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Uncle Al |
| Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 1:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Nat Silver |
| Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 1:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
James Harris wrote:.
Quote: Well I claim that my prime formula is a great discovery,
while others keep posting that it's not important at all!
However, I know exactly how my formula works,
so it seems to me that a good check of others is to
see if they do as well.
If your formulas were up-to-speed, then people
would check your code. It seems to me that your
algorithm was inefficient when compared to other
submissions here in benchmark tests. Is this not so? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lester Zick |
| Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 1:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 28 Nov 2003 09:16:10 -0800, jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) in
sci.cognitive wrote:
Quote: Well I claim that my prime formula is a great discovery, while others
keep posting that it's not important at all!
However, I know exactly how my formula works, so it seems to me that a
good check of others is to see if they do as well.
So I have a simple challenge. Posters assertions imply expertise, and
at a minimum that expertise should involve understanding *how* my
formula works.
So I'll give them a couple of weeks to try and explain it in this
thread, then if all goes according to plan I'll explain to you how it
works, and you can see who is the real expert.
Let me see if I have the general idea. First you delete sci.cognitive
from your address list and then we all agree that the algorithm works
whatever it is.
Regards - Lester |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| C. Bond |
| Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 4:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
James Harris wrote:
Quote: Well I claim that my prime formula is a great discovery, while others
keep posting that it's not important at all!
However, I know exactly how my formula works, so it seems to me that a
good check of others is to see if they do as well.
So I have a simple challenge. Posters assertions imply expertise, and
at a minimum that expertise should involve understanding *how* my
formula works.
I have an even better challenge. Finish cracking the RSA encryption
algorithm and then post your revolutionary results.
[snip]
Quote: Here's the formula and the instructions for using it, I've dropped the
use of the word "integrate" as it opened the door to criticism:
Nope. You were forced to drop it because it was *wrong*.
[snip]
P.S. Don't come back until you finish cracking RSA. Reposting your
previous material over and over and over adds nothing but noise to this
newsgroup.
--
There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable --
and the obvious.
--
Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.
--
http://www.crbond.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Richard Henry |
| Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 6:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"James Harris" <jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3c65f87.0311280916.1dfc65ef@posting.google.com...
Quote: So I have a simple challenge. Posters assertions imply expertise, and
at a minimum that expertise should involve understanding *how* my
formula works.
<...>
Quote: So it's an experiment. Let's see what happens.
I have one prediction. You will ignore negative results. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| James Harris |
| Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 7:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bob Day" <xxxxxxx@yyyyyyy.com> wrote in message news:<pLLxb.10812$lF6.9298@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...
Quote: "James Harris" <jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3c65f87.0311280916.1dfc65ef@posting.google.com...
Well I claim that my prime formula is a great discovery, while others
keep posting that it's not important at all!
Did you give up on trying to crack RSA already?
-- Bob Day
No.
But that's irrelevant to the issue of people claiming that my prime
counting function is unimportant.
My point is that my prime formula is "pure math" which has a right to
be recorded, but mathematicians are blocking, apparently for selfish
reasons.
I'm trying to break through by reminding people of the claims of
mathematicians, like math for math's sake, so that I can make money
from my discovery by selling my story.
What I'm doing in this thread is pointing out that posters working to
convince others that my work is unimportant, should at least be able
to explain how it works, proving their expert status.
I know from some basic knowledge of how the mind works that as those
people are lying, they'll find it extraordinarily difficult to tell
the truth by explaining correctly why my partial difference equation
works in a way to count prime numbers.
I, of course, can readily explain *exactly* how it works, so that's
why I'm giving a couple of weeks to see what people try.
James Harris
"My math discoveries, found for profit"
http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| James Harris |
| Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 7:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<3FC7943D.4D7FA26E@hate.spam.net>...
Quote: James Harris wrote:
Well I claim that my prime formula is a great discovery, while others
keep posting that it's not important at all!
[snip]
Not merely unimportant, trivially wrong. Not merely posted, proven
wrong by the book using empirical examples. Your "work" is an inept
plagiarism of old work left behind by contemporary professionals'
efforts.
That's false. I'm including a Java program implementation for those
curious enough to check. Of course, posters on Usenet are notorious
for giving false information, so it hardly seems to matter to reply to
a poster like "Uncle Al" but unfortunately for me, mathematicians are
not behaving as society expects, so I'll reply here in the hope that
someone might notice.
Wait though, it seems to me that the need of the poster "Uncle Al" to
question the correctness of my work shows I think the popular feeling
that a valid result in the area of prime numbers *should* be worth
noting, especially by mathematicians!!!
The math formula is
dS(x,y) = [p(x/y, y-1) - p(y-1, sqrt(y-1))][ p(y, sqrt(y)) - p(y-1,
sqrt(y-1))],
S(x,1) = 0.
And p(x, y) = floor(x) - S(x, y) - 1, where you get S(x,y) as the sum
of dS from dS(x,2) to dS(x,y).
And, amazingly enough, p(x,sqrt(x)) gives the count of prime numbers
up to and including x, like p(100,10) = 25, the count of primes up to
and including 100.
I'll also include a straightforward Java implementation, which also
prints out prime numbers found by my formula along the way! ___JSH
----------------------------------------------------
public class DefPrimeCounter {
/** Creates a new instance of Main */
public DefPrimeCounter() {
}
/**
* @param args the command line arguments
*/
public static void main(String[] args) {
int x = Integer.parseInt(args[0]);
DefPrimeCounter Counter = new DefPrimeCounter();
Counter.setX(x);
System.out.println("pi("+x+")="+Counter.p(x, (int)Math.sqrt(x)));
}
private int X;
public void setX(int x){
X = x;
}
/**
* Count of composites up to and including x, which have primes
* up to and including y as a factor, e.g. S(8,4) = 3, as the
* primes are 2 and 3, and the three composites are 4,6, and 8
*
* This method is recursive.
*
* @param x largest composites
* y limit for primes
*
* @return integer count of composites
*/
public int S(int x, int y){
int sum=0, j;
int dS=0;
for (j=2; j<=y; j++){
if( p(j, (int)Math.sqrt(j)) - p(j-1, (int)Math.sqrt(j-1))==1){
dS = (p(x/j, j-1) - p(j-1, (int)Math.sqrt(j-1)));
sum += dS;
if (x==X) System.out.println(j);
}
else dS=0;
//if(x==X) System.out.println("dS("+x+","+j+")="+dS);
}
return sum;
}
/**
* Count of primes if y=sqrt(x)
*
* This method calls S(x,y).
*
* @param x largest composites
* y limit for primes
*
* @return integer count of composites
*/
public int p(int x, int y){
return x - S(x,y) - 1;
}
} |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| James Harris |
| Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 7:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Nat Silver" <mathelp@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<BCMxb.123895$Ec1.5234820@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
Quote: James Harris wrote:.
Well I claim that my prime formula is a great discovery,
while others keep posting that it's not important at all!
However, I know exactly how my formula works,
so it seems to me that a good check of others is to
see if they do as well.
If your formulas were up-to-speed, then people
would check your code. It seems to me that your
algorithm was inefficient when compared to other
submissions here in benchmark tests. Is this not so?
That's a red herring as the speed issue is secondary. I admit that a
straightforward implementation directly from the math is slow, but my
point is uniqueness, beauty and purity, as in "pure math".
Mathematicians can't have their cake and eat it too.
Either math is just important in and of itself, so my prime counting
function should be recorded like the others, or practicality, like
speed in counting, is what's really important.
I, for one, would *like* for mathematicians to admit that it's about
practicality and not "purity"!!!
That is, go ahead mathematicians, admit that "pure math" is a crock!
James Harris
"My math discoveries, found for profit"
http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Nat Silver |
| Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 7:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Why not submit your code to a numerical analysis or computer
journal or maybe even take it to the Computer Science
Department at Vanderbilt and see what they think?
I'll tell you why not. Because we both know that
it is not at the level of original research. It's so child-like
to maintain the fantasy of being a misunderstood genius.
Your childhood glory days are over, James. Now you're a
grown-up troll and/or crank. If you can't face it hoist another
and say Cheers!
James Harris wrote:
Quote: Wait though, it seems to me that the need of the poster "Uncle Al" to
question the correctness of my work shows I think the popular feeling
that a valid result in the area of prime numbers *should* be worth
noting, especially by mathematicians!!!
The math formula is
dS(x,y) = [p(x/y, y-1) - p(y-1, sqrt(y-1))][ p(y, sqrt(y)) - p(y-1,
sqrt(y-1))],
S(x,1) = 0.
And p(x, y) = floor(x) - S(x, y) - 1, where you get S(x,y) as the sum
of dS from dS(x,2) to dS(x,y).
And, amazingly enough, p(x,sqrt(x)) gives the count of prime numbers
up to and including x, like p(100,10) = 25, the count of primes up to
and including 100.
I'll also include a straightforward Java implementation, which also
prints out prime numbers found by my formula along the way! ___JSH
snip |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| James Harris |
| Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 7:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<3fc797af.1661458@netnews.att.net>...
Quote: On 28 Nov 2003 09:16:10 -0800, jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) in
sci.cognitive wrote:
Well I claim that my prime formula is a great discovery, while others
keep posting that it's not important at all!
However, I know exactly how my formula works, so it seems to me that a
good check of others is to see if they do as well.
So I have a simple challenge. Posters assertions imply expertise, and
at a minimum that expertise should involve understanding *how* my
formula works.
So I'll give them a couple of weeks to try and explain it in this
thread, then if all goes according to plan I'll explain to you how it
works, and you can see who is the real expert.
Let me see if I have the general idea. First you delete sci.cognitive
from your address list and then we all agree that the algorithm works
whatever it is.
The relevance to sci.cognitive is that not only does my discovery
represent an intriguing case of a unique find in a well-worked
area--as prime numbers are VERY well worked--it also raises questions
about how human beings think.
Why did it take so long before anyone found my formula?
How readily do most people understand something that I'll tell you
relies on VERY simple ideas?
Why would mathematicians fight even *recording* it, challenging the
very values that define them!!! Like, modern mathematicians make
claims about beauty and purity in mathematics, where practical
applications and practical concerns are secondary to the "purity" of
mathematical knowledge gained for the sake of knowledge itself.
There are so many issues for the cognitive sciences that I could go on
and on.
It's fascinating and exciting as it all plays out.
Oh yeah, lest readers forget, the point of this thread is to see if
people claiming my math discovery that can count and *find* prime
numbers is unimportant and not worth acknowledging can prove expertise
by managing to explain how it works.
From my own understanding of how the human brain works, it will be
difficult for posters to lie about the value, yet manage to accurately
explain how it works!
You see, it's like there's a switch in people's heads that goes one
way or another. If they're going to lie about my work, they lose
cognitive function necessary to accurately explain how it works...or
at least that's my theory.
James Harris
"My math discoveries, found for profit"
http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Uncle Al |
| Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 8:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Uncle Al |
| Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 8:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
James Harris wrote:
Quote:
"Nat Silver" <mathelp@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<BCMxb.123895$Ec1.5234820@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
James Harris wrote:.
Well I claim that my prime formula is a great discovery,
while others keep posting that it's not important at all!
However, I know exactly how my formula works,
so it seems to me that a good check of others is to
see if they do as well.
If your formulas were up-to-speed, then people
would check your code. It seems to me that your
algorithm was inefficient when compared to other
submissions here in benchmark tests. Is this not so?
That's a red herring as the speed issue is secondary.
[snip]
Bullshit. Hey stooopid loud troll James Harris, put up or shut up,
http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/challenges/factoring/faq.html
http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/challenges/factoring/numbers.html
http://www.crank.net/harris.html
It's not every braying jackass that gets a whole page at crank.net
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Uncle Al |
| Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 8:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
James Harris wrote:
[snip]
Quote: The relevance to sci.cognitive is that not only does my discovery
represent an intriguing case of a unique find in a well-worked
area--as prime numbers are VERY well worked--it also raises questions
about how human beings think.
[snip]
Idiot. You are trolling, hoping to find one person in the whole of
Usenet who doesn't think you are an ignorant ineducable psychotic ass,
as in
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
The reductionist nature of human thought has been eviscerated by the
Cyc Project. Nobody knows how humans think. Starting with a pickled
brain you can scrape away micron by micron until you hit the wax pan
underneath. You will learn nothing. Anybody who uses James Harris
as an example of human thought will puke so hard a hairy little button
will pop out his mouth - his browneye.
Hey stooopid loud troll James Harris, put up or shut up,
http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/challenges/factoring/faq.html
http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/challenges/factoring/numbers.html
http://www.crank.net/harris.html
It's not every braying jackass that gets a whole page at crank.net
One would imagine an inferior submentality such as yourself would
cream in his jeans given the opportunity to stick it to his betters.
The easy RSA factorization is $10,000 in your pocket, Harris, no
questions asked. Just how stooopid are you? It's money, honey.
Where is your big mouth now?
Excuses. Says James Harris, "the Keebler elves ate my factorization."
Hey stooopid Harris, do you suppose the two primes of the first
factorization are about 1/3 and 2/3 of the number given? Uncle Al
does it in his head, but he doesn't Officially boast about it.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:19 pm
|
|
